Witcher 3 downgrade arguments in here and nowhere else

Status
Not open for further replies.

Doc Evils

Member
I have seen the comparison Video and I still cry and smile. Sometimes it looks amazing and sometimes I cry, because it looks so bad. Sometimes the Viewdistance and LoD is so off its not even funny. Add that to the 2D gras ,and I mean that literally , I break down in Tears, because I know it could look better. We have already seen it better.

funfact: One german Gamestar or PCGH journalist said, they had played a 2014 / 2013 build which was running real time and they agreed that the older Version looked better, but was not running that smooth. They had 8 months off optimization though. So if even the journalist say there was a running better looking PC-version, why is CD doing such a bad PRstunt and why not bring out the better stuff for PC ?

This was discussed early in the thread.

In an interview with a magazine they stated they have one build that they then apply to each platform.

Before this post, there was a post that showed a PDF that contained information about the middleware and how the engine pre-bakes LODS.

Because CD didnt have much time or manpower (my assumption) they went for easiest route, and use one build for all platforms.

In this case, the lowest denominator (Xbox one) would be the highest spec build for all versions.
 
I don't think there will be an EE for this one, Witcher 1 Enhanced Edition made because how broken was the original, Enhanced Edition for Witcher 2 was made because of the 360 version, now with Witcher 3 Simultaneous release and CDPR have another big project already in development.

and even if so I doubt I'll even care about EE a year or so later, since they just fucked up this big time, a massive downgrade then a babebone PC version with same quality assets as the console versions.

They might do an Enhanced Edition because they still want to sell you the expansion pass.
 

viveks86

Member
Legitimately looks like the lighting is turned off.

1648337.gif
 

H4r4kiri

Member
If you are literally crying then you might want to address your reliance on video games graphics.

Optimization always has its trade offs and quite frankly I think we should all be glad to have a top quality game which runs well, that's all you really need. The thickness of grass shouldn't be a sticking point.

It is not about "We have a great looking game ". I know we have. It is about showing real gameplay 8 month before launch and calling that real time. I even think it was real time. So people aspect, because of the optimization, to look even better or run more fluid. Reality is that it looks worse and sometimes way worse. For me that is not okay and is actually false advertising. If the devs would say "Yes you are right. We did have to take things out and change, so we can release the game on all platforms at the same time, but we will work on it and give PC-Players a better experience with postlaunch support and try to hit the stuff we showed 8 month ago" I would be perfectly fine. But the fact that they all say "no downgrade" and even make jokes about "I think we should talk about a upgrade!" is really disappointing.
Considering that without their very loyal PC-crowd they would not even be able to make the Witcher 3 that big and would not have the backing up.
For me this is not a very good thing to do and I feel lied to.
 

Alienous

Member
Haha! Good one.

Haha, I'm not defending them, but it does seem to occur with a lot of the foliage when viewed at a distance. Rather than being a glitch or graphical error I think it's meant to contribute to the 'painterly' art-style of the game. It probably is overaggressive, much like the occlusion culling.
 

skonvolt

Member
You'd be crazy not to. I, on the other hand, am still in my chair, cuz I fell off it 2 days ago. Now I'm all zen-like, letting all this insanity wash over me. Monday gun be goooood!

i fell too but for the easy reason that my cat disappear with mi lighter, and i fell reaching the other one.
 

artsi

Member
So they can do many flat buildings with same color roof, so can a PS2. You don't see the engine doing uniquely textured intricate stuff.

If ARMA 3 can do the above graphics and still scale out like your copter shot, then you have a point.

Well why not, here's some details shots because the game is beautiful even when you're down there. Castles aren't as nice as in W3 for sure, but I threw one in anyway.

 

Qassim

Member
Besides, what further need would the average PC gamer need for a graphics card than games?

I think you misunderstood me, I'm not saying anything that would suggest you get a gaming graphics card for anything other than games. I'm saying there is far more to PC gaming than just playing multiplatform games at higher graphical fidelity/performance and I think if you're investing into PC gaming solely as a faster console, then you're not really getting your money's worth and imo, would say it isn't worth doing until towards the mid-end of a generation where the gap really opens up.
 

skonvolt

Member
The quamity of the stream is good.

Edit : the stream was took down ?

Yep afdter was back for 5 sec and than died again

but still the only stream i will trust is the one where my pc run the game & stream on my TV.

CDPROJECT Please stop our speculations, unlock the game, & let us try first hand that we are all wrong. and we are just negative frustrated gamers.
 

UnrealEck

Member
funfact: One german Gamestar or PCGH journalist said, they had played a 2014 / 2013 build which was running real time and they agreed that the older Version looked better, but was not running that smooth. They had 8 months off optimization though. So if even the journalist say there was a running better looking PC-version, why is CD doing such a bad PRstunt and why not bring out the better stuff for PC ?

Plus we don't know what PC that was running on. I mentioned this before, older footage may have ran on a single card and even then, there's already better stuff now than there was at that time. On top of that, PC is constantly advancing in hardware.

I think a lot of devs don't target the high end because they don't want people to play the game on a new not-quite-highest-end graphics card and find they can't max everything out and become a bit annoyed. We all know this sort of thing happens. People buy a nice GTX 970 and expect to max the settings and I'm talking without AA.
 

skonvolt

Member
Plus we don't know what PC that was running on. I mentioned this before, older footage may have ran on a single card and even then, there's already better stuff now than there was at that time. On top of that, PC is constantly advancing in hardware.

I think a lot of devs don't target the high end because they don't want people to play the game on a new not-quite-highest-end graphics card and find they can't max everything out and become a bit annoyed. We all know this sort of thing happens. People buy a nice GTX 970 and expect to max the settings and I'm talking without AA.

how right you are...
 

UnrealEck

Member
The console versions had serious performance problems but the stock GPU accelerated particle system actually looks quite a bit better in many places than the nVidia specific implementation.

You can tell the particles in the GPU PhysX screen are still more densely packed before they start dispersing. I've seen that demo using PhysX and it looks better with it enabled. The way the particles swirl and disperse looks way more dynamic than the static looking non-PhysX variant.

Because their streaming codec keeps crushing on Win 7 :D
They want to deliver a better quality, but can't right now.

Oh cool. I can't understand German but I was about to rage because they went offline before I got to watch anything past 1 frame.
 

Szeth

Member
That lighting :|

As far as I'm concerned the debate is over. The only thing left for me is to see if CDprojekt can man up and admit they did PC gamers dirty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom